Thoughts on the ongoing dispute over the true impact of photo ID voting laws...

America still has a problem. Despite our country’s oft-touted reputation as a shining beacon of democracy and freedom, severe voter apathy and low turnout, not voter fraud (only 9 possible instances of voter impersonation were reported from 2002-2007 according to protectingthevote.com), are once again looking like huge issues for the candidates for the Presidency and others running for office in November’s contests. For a moderate GOP candidate like Mitt Romney, lower than average anticipated voter turnout could mean that white Evangelicals, as well as Ron Paul libertarians have chosen to sit this election out. And for President Obama and other Democrats, a lower than expected turnout might provide evidence that, in addition to the historic narrative of 2008 being a thing of the past, red state efforts to make voting more difficult for the working poor, the young, the disabled, and minorities are working to theirs and our democracy’s detriment.

In states such as Georgia, which along with seven other US states (Texas and South Carolina have not yet precleared their laws with the Department of Justice) has a strict voter photo ID requirement for in-person voting, the elderly poor and other underrepresented groups will no doubt become further dissuaded from making the effort to vote if it means they need to make and additional trip (which requires transportation costs) to purchase a photo ID. The fact that the already dismal voter turnout figures in Georgia (49% average over the past three Presidential elections according to Census.gov) and across the country (54%) are being held down not only by the apathy that already plagues the voting-age populace, but also by the additional ID requirements, means that there is a self-inflicted negative impact on a fundamental tenant of our democracy, the right of the people to vote and to have a voice in the democratic process.

States with strict photo ID laws in place have consistently argued that no one is actually turned away at the polls for not having an ID, and that those without ID can by law cast provisional ballots which shall be counted if the individual produces proof of ID within a specified time period. However, despite wide public support for the ID concept, it is naïve to believe that the chance to cast a provisional ballot, that may not be counted, is going to persuade an individual without a photo ID to make the journey to the polling place to vote knowing their vote will not be counted unless they eventually take the extra step of obtaining an ID and proving they are who they say they are.

It’s also difficult to articulate how requiring additional steps beyond detailed voter registration, where proof of citizenship by social security number or driver’s license number is already a requirement in many states, amounts to anything less than a poll tax if it requires a particular type of photo ID that cannot be obtained without traveling to an office, getting the ID made, and paying whatever fee is required to do so. Taking it a step further, the law in states like Georgia permits only particular photo IDs listed on the Secretary of State’s website, which do not include student IDs from private colleges and universities, but do allow hunting permits to be presented without issue. Still, because it is impossible to measure with accuracy why an individual decides not to vote, the issue of measurability of any disparate impact as a result of this type of de facto tax remains at the heart and soul of the debate over the constitutionality of these laws.

As mentioned above, the argument is that there is no hard data to support the argument that the vote is being suppressed due to photo ID requirements. However, when we consider that most objective people would agree that adding an additional step that costs money to any process, no matter how nominal, at some point becomes a dissuasive factor in choosing to take part in the activity affected, here voting, then as a result it is fairly obvious that there is some sort of impact on voter turnout even if no hard data is obtainable. For example, a Brief Amicus Curiae of Rock the Vote noted that 1/5 of 18-29 year olds don’t have a driver’s license, and according to protectingthevote.com 19% of Latinos, 25% of African Americans, and 20% Asian Americans lack a government-issued photo ID compared to 8% of Whites. Bottom line, our lawmakers should know that one of the underlying purposes of the Voting Rights Acts of 1965 was to protect the right to vote as fundamental to all Americans, regardless of income level, race, color, or any other stereotypical classification. Photo ID requirements are simply a proxy for a broader effort to discourage the above classifications of groups from casting a legal ballot.

It is already a crime to impersonate another American using false identification; such deterrence takes care of any concern of fraud for 99.99% of the voting age populace. Sure, there may be a handful of cases every decade, but there is no justification for additional legal hurdles if there is no large scale problem to be solved. To the contrary, we should be doing everything we can as a society to make it easier to vote. We should be looking at ways to administer secure online elections, improve online registration services, consider moving the Election Day to the weekend to raise turnout, and begin modernizing our electoral process to make it more convenient for our social media driven society. We should not use the simple fear of losing an election veiled in non-factual voter fraud concerns as a reason to create proxies for voter suppression.

Unfortunately, many courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have largely bought into the myth that there is widespread voter fraud which justifies stricter voting laws, but the numbers volunteered by advocates of photo ID laws just do not add up to widespread fraud, and what is truly left is a disparate impact on the most vulnerable and least well off in our society. If we are to use grandiose rhetoric in describing our democracy, we should begin to set an example by doing whatever possible to lift our country from the basement of voter turnout amongst free nations. Despite the majority opinion, these new laws are simply a step back in the wrong direction, and the resulting apathy and low turnout is a black eye on our democracy.

Thoughts on GRAHAM v. FLORIDA and the long term incarceration of juvenile offenders…

The latest round of Supreme Court decisions produced an interesting ruling which protects juveniles from life sentences for committing non-homicidal crimes. As a 16 year old, Terrance Graham was granted life in prison after he violated the terms of his parole from a previous armed robbery conviction by evading arrest in possible connection with yet another crime; thus resulting in a life sentence without parole except in the case of an executive clemency being granted. Graham then appealed his life sentence under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eight Amendment, claiming the punishment did not fit the crime, but his sentence was later upheld by the district appellate court.

The case was then sent to the High Court for a final verdict, and in using precedent and proper application of the Eight Amendment, the court determined that, as a minor, Graham’s life sentence represented a disproportionate punishment in relation to the crimes he had committed. In his majority opinion, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy states “The concept of proportionality is central to the Eighth Amendment” and “Because there was no intent to commit homicide, it was determined that by national standards the punishment was cruel and unusual in relation to the act itself”. In addition, despite the defendants’ minor status, he would be denied any chance at rehabilitation under the Florida court’s decision. On the matter Justice Kennedy states, “The state has denied him any chance to later demonstrate that he is fit to rejoin society based solely on a non-homicide crime that he committed while he was a child in the eyes of the law.”

The High Court was also concerned with the potential over application, in varying forms, of the court’s precedent by the individual states in allowing a death or life sentence in this kind of case. Kennedy writes, “This case implicates a particular type of sentence as it applies to an entire class of offenders who have committed range of crimes.” In addition, Kennedy made it clear that the Eight Amendment trumped the need for states to enforce life sentences on minors who commit non-homicides. He states, “inadequacy of penological theory to justify life without parole sentences for juvenile non homicide offenders, the limited culpability of such offenders, and the severity of these sentences all lead the Court to conclude that the sentencing practice at issue is cruel and unusual.”

Ultimately, the lack of intent to commit murder seems to be the main factor in the 6-3 decision that has allowed Graham to potentially rejoin society. Despite his minor status, the Supreme Court would likely have held the district court’s decision had the act involved a homicide or the intent to kill. Therefore precedent has been set that should serve notice to juveniles who believe the system is designed to protect them from life sentences in all cases. The High Court also made it clear that the priority should be rehabilitation in cases such as this where the defendant has the potential to contribute to society.

This important ruling will give added clarity to the matter of what crimes are deemed atrocious enough to deem a minor responsible at an adult level. The fragile balance between overreaching punishment and commonsensical application of the criminal code has been appropriately defined in the majority opinion, and the Supreme Court’s decision is an example of well thought out application of the Eight Amendment. The end result, a logical new precedent to be applied in an ever evolving process of justice as it relates to the incarceration and the legal rights of minors.

Thoughts on violent video games and the First Amendment rights of minors…

The Supreme Court announced today that they will review the constitutionality of a proposed California law banning the sale of explicitly violent video games to minors. The bill, signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005, would impose up to a $1,000 fine on retailers in violation of selling mature rated games to kids under the age of 18, and would also set stricter guidelines on the video game ratings system. Shortly following the Governor’s endorsement, a Federal Appellate court in San Francisco struck down the law. Now, the question at hand is basically this: Based on Supreme Court precedent on this issue, which repeatedly sides with free speech rights in viewing and purchasing video content, will the High court side with the video game industry or with the Governor and proponents of the new law?

As recently as last Tuesday’s animal cruelty ruling, the Supreme Court has made the judgment that minors, as well as adults have a certain degree of rights when it comes to what they choose to do, watch, or say, as it relates to content that is offensive to some, but tolerated by others. The movie industry and the producers of TV shows and other forms of entertainment are financially dependent on a certain degree of violation by kids when it comes to adhering to their ratings systems. Therefore, they have often exhausted their coffers legally to make sure minors are protected under the first amendment when it relates to viewing or playing games and movies. But this time there may be a new precedent set, mainly because the new law is so specific to video games, and unlike the animal cruelty video case, it may be difficult for the High court to overrule this law on the basis of it being too broad in nature.

The reasoning for the heightened possibility of an endorsement of California Assembly bill 1179 by the Supreme Court is driven by the fact that there is an apparent tie between the psychological impacts of violent video games and an individual’s likelihood to tolerate this kind of behavior in their daily lives. Though the evidence is largely circumstantial, there is no doubt in my mind that exposure to violence at a young age is inherently unhealthy and can lead to violent action later in life. Though most can tolerate these images, some who are predisposed to mental illness may not be able to distinguish between the reality of video games and the realities of everyday life. These concerns, and the relatively lax enforcement of the video games rating system, are likely reasons to believe that the Supreme Court could make new precedent with their ruling on this law.

Whether First Amendment rights allow minors to play anything they want as long as they don’t buy it is also at issue. The bill states that this will not be the case, but the court could choose to address the matter in order to set the record straight on the rights of minors to play games with explicit content bought by their parents or guardians, specifically within the privacy of their homes. The Supreme Court will likely rule that the California law sufficiently addresses this matter, and that the First Amendment protects a minor’s right to play games purchased by an adult. The enforcement then lies with the parent or guardian, and their own household rules. This is how it has always been, and in a free country it is how it should be in my mind. However, few can disagree that we have a right to protect children from images that may hurt them mentally. The Supreme Court now has to juggle the pros and cons of this law, but based on recent history, we should all rest assured that the First Amendment rights of minors will be protected at all costs.

Despite this fact, opponents from the video game industry will fight the constitutionality of the law at all costs. In a capitalist society, few can blame them for protecting their profits; however, it may be that the industry has gone too far in marketing games intended for adults to minors. They have abused their ability to market to a certain demographic, much like cigarettes, and their time may have come to be put to task. This kind of law, regardless of the reasons for opposition, makes sense when coupled with a conscious effort by parents to manage the content their children play. This combination of forces will make the best of the Supreme Court’s decision and ensure that the government does what is best for the highly impressionable, and technologically savvy next generation.

Thoughts on Deaths Related to Lack of Health Insurance in the US

Today, while doing my research for this article, I stumbled upon an old USA Today article from May of 2002. In the article, it had been determined by researchers that 18,000 people in the United States had died from a lack of health insurance in 2001. The article also mentioned that approximately 30 million people lacked health insurance at the time, a number relatively equal to the amount of people who will be covered under the Senate’s health care bill. These numbers, while staggering, pale in comparison to the numbers researchers found in 2009.

In a CNN article from September of 2009, It was determined that over 45,000 Americans died in 2008 because they did not have health care insurance, a number we can only sadly predict as having risen since. This, with approximately 45 million Americans off of the Health Insurance rolls. At the same time, health insurance CEO’s raked in massive salaries, while denying coverage to many of these people who are no longer with us. 15 Million People joined the ranks of the uninsured, and a staggering increase of deaths amongst this group makes this the biggest homeland threat we have ever faced.

We have spent nearly 750 billion dollars on the War in Iraq, but nothing has been done to respond to the thousands of deaths occurring right under our noses. Using basic math, passing the current bill would save approximately 30,000 lives over the course of a year, just by providing basic health care services to the sick and needy. The short term costs of a trillion dollars over 10 years, while tough to swallow, are nothing compared to the costs to families across the country. If the current system remains in place, we are effectively allowing people to die on our watch. It’s really that simple. No matter what the partisan debate of the moment may be, we must all agree that the status quo is not acceptable.

In the end, the bill will not make anybody 100% happy. But, if we can save that many lives per year, and potentially pay down the costs over the next decade, then why not use the Senate Bill as a starting point, a base from which adjustments can be made over time? If we can save the lives of our fellow Americans by passing this historic reform package, then it would seem passing the bill now would be in the best interest of everyone but the insurance companies.

This week should see resolution of a yearlong debate over the current process and the product created by both houses. Will everyone be happy? No, but if we all do some soul searching, and think about those less fortunate, maybe we can all agree that saving the lives of our fellow citizens, and making health care a right, not a privilege, will be in the long term best interest of our economy, our communities, and our country.